O Jerusalem,
Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets, and stonest them which
are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered thy children
together, even as a hen gathereth her chicken under her wings,
and ye wouldnot! Matt. 23:37.

NOTHING is more
common in the mouths and writings of the Arminians than this
Scripture, which they are ready to produce on every occasion,
against the doctrines of election and reprobation, particular
redemption, and the irresistible power of God in conversion, and
in favour of sufficient grace, and of the freewill and power of
man, though to very little purpose, as will appear when the
following things are observed.

1. That by
Jerusalem we are not to understand the city, nor all the
inhabitants; but the rulers and governors of it, both civil and
ecclesiastical, especially the great Sanhedrin, which was held in
it, to whom best belong the descriptive characters of killing the
prophets, and stoning such as were sent to them by God, and who
are manifestly distinguished from their children; itbeing
usual to call such whowere the heads of the people,
either in a civil or ecclesiastical sense, fathers, Acts 7:2,
and 22:1 and such who were subjects anddisciples, children,
19:44, Matt. 12:27, Isa. 8:16, 18. Besides, our Lord's
discourse, throughout the whole context, is directed to the
Scribes and Pharisees, the ecclesiastical guides of the people,
and to whom the civil governors paid a special regard. Hence it
is manifest, that they are not the same persons whom Christ would
have gathered, who would not. It is not said, How often
would I have gathered you, and you would not, asDr.
Whitby more than once inadvertently cites the text; nor, he
would have gathered Jerusalem, and she would not, as the same
author transcribes it in another place; nor, he would have
gathered them, thy children, and they would not, in which
form it is alsosometimes expressed by him; but I would
have gathered thy children, and ye would not, which
observation alone is sufficient todestroy the argument
founded on this passagein favour offreewill.

2. That the gathering
here spoken of does not design a gathering of the Jews to
Christ internally, by the Spirit and grace of God; but a
gathering of them to him internally, by and under the ministry of
the word, to hear him preach; so as that they might be brought to
a conviction of and an assent unto him, as the Messiah; which,
though it might have fallen short of saving faith in him, would
have been sufficient to have preserved them from temporal ruin,
threatened to their city and temple in the following
verseBehold,your house is left unto you
desolate: which preservation is signified by the hen
gathering her chickens under her wings, and shows that the
text has no concern with the controversy about the manner of the
operation of God's grace in conversion; for all those whom Christ
would gather in this sense were gathered, notwithstanding all the
opposition made by the rulers of the people.

3. That the will of
Christ to gather these persons is not to be understood of his
divine will or of his will as God; for who hath resisted his
will? this cannot be hindered nor made void; he hath done
whatsoever he pleased; but of his human will, or of his will
as man; which though not contrary to the divine will, but
subordinate to it, yet not always the same with it, nor always
fulfilled.. He speaks here as a man and minister of the
circumcision, and expresses a human affection for the
inhabitants of Jerusalem, and a human wish or will for their
temporal good, instances of which human affection and will may be
observed in Mark 10:21, Luke 19:41, and 22:42. Besides, this will
of gathering the Jews to him was in him, and expressed by him at
certain several times, by intervals, and therefore he says, How
often would I have gathered, &c. Whereas the divine will
is one continued invariable and unchangeable will, is always the
same, and never begins or ceases to be, and to which such an
expression as this is inapplicable; and therefore this passage of
Scripture does not contradict the absolute and sovereign will of
God in the distinguishing acts off it, respecting election and
reprobation.

4. That the persons
whom Christ would have gathered are not represented as being unwilling
to be gathered; but their rulers were not willing that they
should. The opposition and resistance to the will of Christ, were
not made by the people, but by their governors. The common people
seemed inclined to attend the ministry of Christ, as appears from
the vast crowds which, at different times and places, followed
him; but the chief priests and rulers did all they could to
hinder the collection of them to him, and their belief in him as
the Messiah, by traducing his character, miracles, and doctrines,
and by passing an act that whosoever confessed him should be put
out of the synagogue; so that the obvious meaning of the text is
the same with that of ver. 13, where our Lord says, Woe unto
you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites; for ye shut up the
kingdom of heaven against men; for ye neither go in yourselves,
neither suffer ye them that are entering to go in; and
consequently is no proof of men's resisting the operations of the
Spirit and grace of God, but of obstructions and discouragements
thrown in the way of attendance on the external ministry of the
word.

5. That in order to
set aside and overthrow the doctrines of election, reprobation,
and particular redemption, it should be proved that Christ, as
God, would have gathered, not Jerusalem and the inhabitants
thereof only, but all mankind even such as are not eventually
saved, and that in a spiritual saving way and manner to himself,
of which there is not the least intimation in this text; and in
order to establish the resistibility of God's grace, by the
perverse will of man, so as to become of no effect, it should be
proved that Christ would have savingly converted these persons,
and they would not be converted; and that he bestowed the same
grace upon them he does bestow on others who are converted;
whereas the sum of this passage lies in these few words, that
Christ, as man, out of a compassionate regard for the people of
the Jews, to whom he was sent, would have gathered them together
under his ministry, and have instructed them in the knowledge of
himself as the Messiah; which, if they had only notionally
received, would have secured them as chickens under the hen from
impending judgments which afterwards fell upon them; but their
governors, and not they, would not, that is, would not suffer
them to be collected together in such a manner, and hindered all
they could, their giving any credit to him as the Messiah; though
had it been said and they would not, it would only have
been a most sad instance of the perverseness of the will of man,
which often opposes his temporal as well as his spiritual good.